GMO : Worth it or Risk it

Genetic Modification seems to be facing “Two faced coin” situation. On one hand researchers take privilege pave new ways of genetic modification, while on the other hand, experienced scientists impose hurdles towards the application point of view. The thin line between fear and hope has caused the prevalence of Genetically Modified Organisms i.e. GMO.

Genetic Engineers alleviate fear through novel discoveries instreaming hope. Commercial firms such as Monsanto, Del Monte, etc. imply contiguous efforts to proliferate the ideologies of Genetic Modifications by mutating the genes of interest in plants and animals. Well, humans have not yet been considered for Genetic Manipulation by ‘Genethics’. This gap is serendipitously bridged by mutations. Mutations induced in potential organisms pose a risk of mutations in consumer.

There are two types of artificially inducible mutations (in organisms of interest):

Gene mutations

Chromosomal mutations

Mouse is the first genetically modified animal. Glo fish is the first genetically modified animal to be sold as pet. Cartagena protocol on biological safety has allowed the export of genetically modified corn and cotton as far. Terminology of Living Modified Organisms which is defined as the organism that could pass on the genetic modification further. Introduction of Bt Brinjal by Mahyco in India faced strong criticism from farmers and environmentalists. “Genetic Engineering Approval Committee” (GEAC) under the “Conservation and Survey Division” of “Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change” planned to approve Brinjal out of the Brinjal, Mustard and Potato for genetic alterations.

Genetically modified crops can be classified into two categories based upon the purpose involved:

Those that produce a pesticide within the plant like BT Cotton and BT Brinjal.

Those that assimilate application of more pesticides and confer herbicide tolerance specific to a crop.

Dr. M.S. Swaminathan suggested, “Unsafe mutations can be made safe through regulation”. This statement stirred doubts since genetic modification by insertion of new genes is now known to cause mutations all along the genome of an organism and also at the site of insertion.

A study by ‘University of Sherbrooke’ detected Bacillus Thuringiensis (BT) in the blood of human fetuses and their mothers’. This led to further fear of potential occurrences of mutations due to presence of unusual biomolecule. Genetically ethical NGOs consistently points fingers with fear of unexpected mutation and disorders.

GMO is still not accepted in the society, and people fear the Science.

The chaos and equivocal activity done due to negligence of labelling GMOs by GMO Agritech Sectors and food companies have posed distrust and lackluster over genetic engineering methods and ideologies. Scientifically, carcinogenic ‘Glyphosate’ is detected in GM foods.

Countries like Canada invests funds for mandatory labelling of GMOs in food products. As mentioned by Steven Druker in his book, “Altered Genes, Twisted Truth”; negligence of labelling implies ignorance that could aggravate the chances of mutation in consumers manifold.

Looking on to the effects apart from threats, Genetic Modifications (GM) reduced pesticide usage and helped producing drought, flood and cold resistant crops. GM also improves nutrional profile of food. Golden Rice which proved to be a key element in reducing global rates of malnutririoin.

Finally Garra Fish also called as the ‘Doctor Fish’ find its place in Indian spas.

Coming on to GM animals, “Gara rufa” is a species of fish in which the genes responsible for teeth development are silenced in order to feed only on dead cells. This fish is nowadays deployed mostly for pedicure and foot massages. Cows are injected by specified hormones to genetically modify mammary glands to produce milk with high protein content.

Genetic Engineering can prove very beneficial to human society. Unexpected detection of biomolecule from genetic mutation/modification stirs tremors of side effects amongst consumers.

If mutation in organism of interest cause mutation in consumers then mutation in consumers can be the benchmark to improvise the methods of inducing mutations in organisms. In this manner the problem caused could be used as the solution to solve the problem.

http://www.geneticengg.com/2016/11/17/gmo-worth-it-or-risk-it/http://www.geneticengg.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/asdf-1024x768.jpghttp://www.geneticengg.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/asdf-150x150.jpg2016-11-17T15:40:32+00:00Ashish NairGeneticsGMObtcotton,Genetic Engineering,glo fish,GMO,mutationGenetic Modification seems to be facing “Two faced coin” situation. On one hand researchers take privilege pave new ways of genetic modification, while on the other hand, experienced scientists impose hurdles towards the application point of view. The thin line between fear and hope has caused the prevalence of...Ashish NairAshishNairashishnair28@gmail.comEditorGeneticEngg.com

8 Comments Already

What happen to the cow .whether they got successful GM or not .Genetically modified organism are wonderful idea,if the cow got high protein milk content means then why can’t we suggest GEAC to approve it.

Well if you look at the other part of mutations. Most packed food that we eat are gamma and UV treated.which are general mutagens. So when methods like those are deemed as safe then we can broaden the scope of GMOs and not label them downright harmful